And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft." If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

“…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”

None of that amounts to saying that the OP doesn't 'deserve' a defense. He does. He also deserves to have his admissions rescinded. He also had no justification for doing what he did, etc. We're making moral judgments - we're not a jury here, nor are we impeding his right to seek counsel.

There is nothing contradictory about the things we have been saying and the beliefs we might have about his right to seek counsel.

I'm glad you have distinguished the two. I don't think some of our other colleagues have gone so far. But I am willing to argue that the OP may have had SOME justification to do what he did, albeit not a strong one. I don't think we know enough regarding the boss's previous level of authorization to the OP's actions to say that he is completely devoid of justification.

Well, justification is often used interchangably in common parlance with 'reasoning', but justification is really a level of proof met by reasons. So you can't really have SOME justification. Logically, you either have justification, or you don't.

I get where you're coming from, but I believe that the technical definition of justification, as it applies to philosophical and legal arguments, is as I've defined it.

And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft." If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

“…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”

Thanks for snipping all my quotes! Now here's one by you:

"I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say."

YES, IT IS OUR POSITION.

What do you not understand about that? The legal profession is self-regulating. We are the ones that will decide the rules of conduct that apply to our profession. It is our "position" to say "we don't need rotten" lawyers.

The people in law school now -us- will be the ones that sit on benches and committees that will write and interpret rules of professional conduct. Not some separate body of non-lawyers but the legal profession itself.

As lawyers to be we have every right to advocate on behalf of a better profession. A profession without people like nola.

I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.

Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.

I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.

Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.

I've have never said that nola shouldn't try to defend him/herself. Only that I don't wish nola luck in succeeding, because I find nola's action indefensible.

Although I agree that we don't know "all the facts," there are NO facts that could reveal themselves that would justify what nola did. Seriously, what possible facts would justify making up a letter of recommendation and forging someone's name? Even IF nola's boss said nola could (and nola's boss did not give nola permission), this still would not have justified it.

Just wondering if WheelsUp=nola...anyone else? Their only posts are all in this thread and it all seems a little suspect. Apologies if this isn't the case.

/derail

As far as the "OP" goes- the only thing s/he can do is talk to a lawyer and try to protect their offers. I've gotta say that I don't think it looks good, especially where the boss already told the LSAC that they didn't write the LOR. Definitely interested in the details of how this turns out, though, let us know!

And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft." If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

“…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”

Thanks for snipping all my quotes! Now here's one by you:

"I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say."

YES, IT IS OUR POSITION.

What do you not understand about that? The legal profession is self-regulating. We are the ones that will decide the rules of conduct that apply to our profession. It is our "position" to say "we don't need rotten" lawyers.

The people in law school now -us- will be the ones that sit on benches and committees that will write and interpret rules of professional conduct. Not some separate body of non-lawyers but the legal profession itself.

As lawyers to be we have every right to advocate on behalf of a better profession. A profession without people like nola.

I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.

Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.

I've have never said that nola shouldn't try to defend him/herself. Only that I don't wish nola luck in succeeding, because I find nola's action indefensible.

Although I agree that we don't know "all the facts," there are NO facts that could reveal themselves that would justify what nola did. Seriously, what possible facts would justify making up a letter of recommendation and forging someone's name? Even IF nola's boss said nola could (and nola's boss did not give nola permission), this still would not have justified it.

Jesus Christ I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're a troll or just an ass.

If you are not a troll nor an ass and are actually impassioned by Nola's malfeasance, you are making a mistake by judging Nola in a vacuum. It should be obvious why it's a problem to determine morally corrupt character on a single instance of poor judgment that is relatively minor. If s/he was a serial killer, your passion would be vindicated, but I would think a reasonable person would need more evidence to leap from morally corrupt decision to morally corrupt character as you seem so eager to do.

And this ignores the notion that people have the capability of learning from their mistakes, but it seems in his perfection TTom is unaware of such a phenomenon. For all we know, Nola will become the most ethically rigid and ethically just individual in the world because of this event.

And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft." If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

“…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”

Thanks for snipping all my quotes! Now here's one by you:

"I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say."

YES, IT IS OUR POSITION.

What do you not understand about that? The legal profession is self-regulating. We are the ones that will decide the rules of conduct that apply to our profession. It is our "position" to say "we don't need rotten" lawyers.

The people in law school now -us- will be the ones that sit on benches and committees that will write and interpret rules of professional conduct. Not some separate body of non-lawyers but the legal profession itself.

As lawyers to be we have every right to advocate on behalf of a better profession. A profession without people like nola.

I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.

Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.

I've have never said that nola shouldn't try to defend him/herself. Only that I don't wish nola luck in succeeding, because I find nola's action indefensible.

Although I agree that we don't know "all the facts," there are NO facts that could reveal themselves that would justify what nola did. Seriously, what possible facts would justify making up a letter of recommendation and forging someone's name? Even IF nola's boss said nola could (and nola's boss did not give nola permission), this still would not have justified it.

Jesus Christ I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're a troll or just an ass.

If you are not a troll nor an ass and are actually impassioned by Nola's malfeasance, you are making a mistake by judging Nola in a vacuum. It should be obvious why it's a problem to determine morally corrupt character on a single instance of poor judgment that is relatively minor. If s/he was a serial killer, your passion would be vindicated, but I would think a reasonable person would need more evidence to leap from morally corrupt decision to morally corrupt character as you seem so eager to do.

And this ignores the notion that people have the capability of learning from their mistakes, but it seems in his perfection TTom is unaware of such a phenomenon. For all we know, Nola will become the most ethically rigid and ethically just individual in the world because of this event.

I'm with TC on this one. The funniest thing about this thread it TTom's belief that nola's mistake is the reason lawyers have a bad rap. I think lawyers have a bad rap because (somewhat correctly and somewhat incorrectly) they are seen as greedy, snobbish, elitist, and immoral.

Nola screwed up. Nobody is arguing that. But it's not like he/she manipulated the LSAT score or GPA illegally. They simply stretched the line of ethical conduct too far, trying to convince themselves that what they were doing wasn't wrong. Not commendable or even correct, but something that happened none the less. I feel for them. It's a mistake I could have easily made, or anybody else for that matter, in some equally in/signficant aspect of life. I probably have, and TTom probably has too, even though he likely will never admit it.

I've made millions of mistakes, many of them illegal. We all have. And that's what made me so sad- its the people like TTom, the people who literally believe in right and wrong, who really think that good people don't make heinous, horrible mistakes, and who are so willing to judge others, talking about their high ethical standards as they do so(which most of the time aren't any higher or lower than the person they're judging). Sadly, I'm there are way more TToms in the world than I'd personally hope for.